a13antichrist
New Member
Can you even read English? Judging by the so-totally-missing-the-point-ness of your last post one would be inclined to think not.
Beauty and the Beast
- Thread starter Professur
- Start date
a13antichrist
New Member
Gonz said:
No, you've missed the point entirely. The only point I was making, and that I have been making since my very first post, but the one that seems to have escaped each and every one of you, is that you can judge a person's PHYSICAL beauty independantly from everything else. And "judge", in case any of you are STILL blinded by your own attempts at hiding your prejudices, means simply and solely "GIVE AN OPINION ON" - NOT "you must conform to what society says the answer is". I had thought that you, at least, would have read the thing properly in the first place.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
I can see your point. There have been some real bitches, and some evil bitches that make the lower-level bitches look like saints, that I would still have nailed faster than you could say "Ambesol" if given the chance for some hot, no-strings-attached sex. I wouldn't want them around after I finished up, of course.a13antichrist said:
A13, I know what you're saying & I agree with it, in theory. However, since man is a social creature we tend to run in herds. Simple things like beauty is subjective to social norms. In todays society, fat chicks are ostracized, generally. However, there are plenty of married fat chicks. Are the men with fat chicks less shallow or were they initially attracted to obese wimins & the wife had other wonderful qualities? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Which is why fat chicks & skinny chicks & ugly chicks & amazon queens are all beautiful to somebody.
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
The fat was one fat....I don't know why but fat girls thinking they are fabulous and "sassy" is just sad. It seems they are expending so much energy to prove to themselves that they are "sassy" and "hot" rather than actually believing it.
The bald one was most likely a dude....she/he scared me. I have only seen one bald woman who looked hot and she was the teller behind the window in the booking place in the movie "snatch".
The old one was sweet and easy on the eyes for a aged woman.
The bald one was most likely a dude....she/he scared me. I have only seen one bald woman who looked hot and she was the teller behind the window in the booking place in the movie "snatch".
The old one was sweet and easy on the eyes for a aged woman.
tank girl
New Member
a13antichrist said:
English, yes. Bullshit - no. Judging by all of your posts you feel as though you have some god-given right to 'prove' something to everyone on here about how your opinion of the matter is the only one thats RIGHT. Unfortunately, being a bulletin board everyone has the right to state their own opinion, and perception of the issue and not neccesarily the one that is true to YOU. Just because I go on my own tangent doesn't mean that I don't understand what the point is to you...I just don't agree with it. You, i think don't understand the real issue, because I don't think you seem to understand that although YOU might be limited by prejudice but you seem to want to try and target everyone and assume that they are just like you but are trying to ignore that. Wake up! You seem to think that everyone should attack the issue according to your narrow point of view. Unfortunately, thats all it is...Your point of view...limited, twisted and way perverted into thinking that you're some sort of an authority on the issue.
= Its about attention, methinks. (or the lack of...)
that is one beautiful girl. In the context in which I look at her, I don't give a darn if I like her "personality" or not. In a magazine ad, I don't give a darn whether I like the person in the picture. In the context of the link, it doesn't matter a whit what the personalities of the people in the pics were. The question was, do you find beauty in looking at this "fat", "bald", "older" person.? Do you answer in the PC way? Do you actually find this stuff attractive to look at? Were you repulsed at all? Do you want to see these sorts of people in magazine ads for a change?
It's an entirely seperate issue to knowing someone in person and having their personality influence how one looks upon them. Seems to me y'all are having two entirely different discussions and then wondering why you're each wrong.
tank girl
New Member
sure, its an entirely different issue, a different context - but the whole act of looking and deciding on an objectifying basis whether someone is beautiful or not is an issue in itself.I mean, WHO defines beautiful? What do we feel we should or shouldn't define beautiful by? Just because we have learned to find the soft-porn image of some girl beautiful in comparison to the glaring obese girl does not mean that we need to associate that with a narrow judgement without a critical appraoach that asks why this must be. Sure, the girl is attractive, but besides that I actually find that picture offensive! and therefore not particually Beautiful in the whole sense of the word, as it means to me.....
...Representations of current notions of "Beauty" define our identities and ability to evaluate just what constitutes beauty. These sorts of cultural definitions directly affect women and men in in everyday life. Representations of attractive, models are not only images, but actions as well....This type of representation directly affects us because it falsely defines who we are and who we can be, physically. The beauty of individuality is ignored and blurred behind stereotypes, and these are identified as a single collective notion of what beauty means. AN image of a 'beautiful' model is a representation of a beautiful model - just that, RE - Presentation of someones (almost always masculine) ideals about what "beauty" should mean. And so in the case of our lovely model up there, she is the typical soft-porn symbol of submissive femininity and sexual avaliability - constructed to do what? make men feel good about themselves, and women want to look like that ("beautiful") to make men feel good about themselves! No matter how unrealistic they may be, and by standing in for and being celebrated as the 'ideal' beauty, the true beauty, the only physical ideal - they manufacture a fantasy for us to participate in while at the same time make us feel bad for being our real, beautiful imperfect selves.
...Representations of current notions of "Beauty" define our identities and ability to evaluate just what constitutes beauty. These sorts of cultural definitions directly affect women and men in in everyday life. Representations of attractive, models are not only images, but actions as well....This type of representation directly affects us because it falsely defines who we are and who we can be, physically. The beauty of individuality is ignored and blurred behind stereotypes, and these are identified as a single collective notion of what beauty means. AN image of a 'beautiful' model is a representation of a beautiful model - just that, RE - Presentation of someones (almost always masculine) ideals about what "beauty" should mean. And so in the case of our lovely model up there, she is the typical soft-porn symbol of submissive femininity and sexual avaliability - constructed to do what? make men feel good about themselves, and women want to look like that ("beautiful") to make men feel good about themselves! No matter how unrealistic they may be, and by standing in for and being celebrated as the 'ideal' beauty, the true beauty, the only physical ideal - they manufacture a fantasy for us to participate in while at the same time make us feel bad for being our real, beautiful imperfect selves.
a13antichrist
New Member
tank girl said:
Unfortunately, being a bulletin board is useless if you start discussing your own topic that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and carrying on as if you're still trying to discuss the original topic. All that that does is portray the impression that you have no idea how to follow a conversation and so jump onto the first soapbox you can find.
= It's about actually being able to understand what gets written - this was actually directed at Hex's criticism of me; not at my comments. Maybe you should reconsider your participation in this type of interaction until you can demonstrate an ability to actually follow a simple conversation.
And, that chick.. yeah, she is pretty.. not to mention *hot*.
heh
tank girl
New Member
a13antichrist said:
Have you ever heard of thought association? free-writing? thats my idea of the function of a bulletin board building on whatever has come before and constructing ideas from that... Otherwise this place would be boring. As far as I know, there are no "RULEs" about how a board like this should or should not function, along the terms of freedom of speech - if there were - then there would be no need for them in the first place, but thats another story. That way theres no need to be limited to a narrow perspective, that way everyone can have their voice heard, even your fascist bullshit: soo PUHLEESE don't try and "instruct" me on what I should or should not say. If anyone here thinks i somehow don't deserve a place on the boards then I'm sure someone will say, but from your record you obviously don't have much authority on the matter. I am merely offering my voice: my views and ideas for other people to dwell on if they choose - it doesn't matter if they're rational to me, it matters if they are saying something worth thinking about in regards to the discussion.
No, I don't think that anything of what I said is irrelevant, maybe to your understanding of the 'issue'; but as I've pointed out, that perspective is obviously a very limited one.
It doesn't HAVE to function like a linear conversation, at all. And if I feel like wvoicing and ranting and raving about my own opinions on something - and extending on them, I will. It may not be logical, but then how else would anyone be able to think outside the square?
a13antichrist
New Member
Then go for it. Just stop getting all righteous about stuff that people say that - as you just mentioned - has nothing to do with what you're complaining about.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
OK...this is a commercial for a bar of soap. Their point is that despite not being of the 'conventional beauty' type..they're still beautiful because they used Dove. Sheesh...is it that hard to grasp? It's commercialism!
Conventional beauty is created by the media...it actually represent a small portion of .01% of the population...if that much. It's the 'ideal' beauty created through makeup, great lighting and photoshop...and its meant to sell goods.
Real beauty goes beyond mere symetry and the 4B's (Blonde, blue-eyed, busty and bone-thin). Its a combination of thousands of little things like posture, colours of clothing, cut, smiles etc etc...and the shape of the ears, wrinkles, beauty marks etc...etc... ad nauseum. That's the shell... and the only part that you can safely judge in one glance or one picture.
Lets face it... none of us are likely to meet the women in these pics, nor get to know them, so the shell is all that we can guage.
ps. I havn't seen teh URL, but the street-signs are nice. I love the red-head with the freckles and the bald chick. Nice smiles
Conventional beauty is created by the media...it actually represent a small portion of .01% of the population...if that much. It's the 'ideal' beauty created through makeup, great lighting and photoshop...and its meant to sell goods.
Real beauty goes beyond mere symetry and the 4B's (Blonde, blue-eyed, busty and bone-thin). Its a combination of thousands of little things like posture, colours of clothing, cut, smiles etc etc...and the shape of the ears, wrinkles, beauty marks etc...etc... ad nauseum. That's the shell... and the only part that you can safely judge in one glance or one picture.
Lets face it... none of us are likely to meet the women in these pics, nor get to know them, so the shell is all that we can guage.
ps. I havn't seen teh URL, but the street-signs are nice. I love the red-head with the freckles and the bald chick. Nice smiles
tank girl
New Member
MrBishop said:OK...this is a commercial for a bar of soap. Their point is that despite not being of the 'conventional beauty' type..they're still beautiful because they used Dove. Sheesh...is it that hard to grasp? It's commercialism!
Conventional beauty is created by the media...it actually represent a small portion of .01% of the population...if that much. It's the 'ideal' beauty created through makeup, great lighting and photoshop...and its meant to sell goods.
Real beauty goes beyond mere symetry and the 4B's (Blonde, blue-eyed, busty and bone-thin). Its a combination of thousands of little things like posture, colours of clothing, cut, smiles etc etc...and the shape of the ears, wrinkles, beauty marks etc...etc... ad nauseum. That's the shell... and the only part that you can safely judge in one glance or one picture.
Lets face it... none of us are likely to meet the women in these pics, nor get to know them, so the shell is all that we can guage.
ps. I havn't seen teh URL, but the street-signs are nice. I love the red-head with the freckles and the bald chick. Nice smiles
THANKYOU! sheeesh
thats what I was getting at, lol, (more or less) 
a13antichrist
New Member
tank girl said:THANKYOU! sheeesh
Yep but yu've still missed the point entirely. Everyone knew what you were getting at. Your problem was that you were objecting to comments based on a topic that had nothing to do with what the comments were talking about.
THat's like, if you said you enjoy having monogomous sex with your faithful bf and me responding that that makes you a slut for wanting to have sex with everyone you see. Pretty dumb, huh?
Oh and while I think of it.. your immediate need to show everyone that you don't agree with is exactly the kind of want-to-be-seen-to-believe-what-you-believe-you-should social validation that brought me to criticise Hex's unbelieveably shallow comment in the first place.
tank girl
New Member
I respond and rant because I feel the need too, not because of anything else. And I certainly don't feel the need to restrict myself to your point and your comments. My comments were merely my own interpretation of the topic of the first post of the thread:
& the hypocracy of the "Dove Ad Campaign" combined with my own INDIVIDUAL insights, but I admit being provoked by your soo-not-getting-the-concept-of-beauty bullshit.Especially where it comes to your warped notion of "shallowness"
I can make whatever input I want, not just run along the lines of whatever in particular you felt the need to argue. They were my comments, I don't care if they didn't make sense with your argument...all the better if they didn't, I say! This place needs a madwoman,
and I'm all to happy to take the part, though I'm sure there are a few here waiting to join me in the wings...(I still don't get the weirdo so-not-got-anything-to-do-with-anything analogy - you kinda contradict yourself a bit because you're doing the same thing as me in a way)
And as far as attention goes, you got it baby, I enjoy being provocative, at least it livens things up a bit, gets people talking or thinking "what the..."?, but The thing is I know where to draw the line, (mostly
). What I don't get is your habitual need to be so negative and cutting of any alternative opinions all the time, its just not constructive see?.??
Maybe this is more of an issue of "this place ain't big enough for the both of us"????
(and if thats the problem, I'm more than willing for a showdown at sunset!!!) lighten up okay? stop trying to be such a Board-Nazi! I just said "thats what I meant more or less" to be nothing more than a joke on my behalf... At least I can laugh at myself!, perhaps you should try it sometime instead of being so anal about everything!
Take care,
PS: Jesus loves you!!
